Do not vote for KidsFirst!

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Meatloaf on March 23, 2010 at 8:34pm

In writing is nice, why not ask them to write letters to papers and not blogs.

Sven said:

Meatloaf said:

Honestly, if you want answers approach people and ask them. Don't hide behind a blog post and expect people to answer all questions here. In person, it is, of course, more personal and you get a sense of whether or not the person is lying. You see facial features and reactions to said questions. Blogging for answers is not that best way to get them. Old school talking to someone face to face is the best, and that is what Leon said he would do and other members of KF would do that same if you have the guts to go ask them.

You are right regarding the facial features and reactions in face-to-face conversations. There is something to be said about requesting the candidates to put their positions in writing, though. Words uttered in private conversations mean very little when it comes to holding elected officials accountable. They can simply deny having made whatever promises in such private conversations. It is much harder to back-paddle when the statements are in writing.

Therefore, I agree with those who have stated that all candidates should put their positions in writing when asked. This does not prevent them from having as many private conversations as they wish in addition.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lincolnlogger on March 24, 2010 at 10:03am

Georgia, I'll do my best. I make these statements as an honest attempt to answer your questions to the best of my knowledge. Any mistakes or misstatements I make are my own.

1. It seem to me that there was a little progress made on this, though not as much as you or I would have hoped. I'm not convinced it's the number one priority though, for reasons mentioned earlier. Basically, an extra 200 kids spread out throughout the Hoboken schools and classrooms don't add a whole lot of burden to the system, and the savings of finding them and removing them would be minimal. I'm not convinced that even one teacher's position would be cut if they all were found, given the fact that they are spread thought all the grades and schools.

2. The sad reality is that the State cuts are the reason we are not seeing a change in the tax levy. In essence, the budget was cut, but any savings that we would have realized were swallowed by the radically large drop in state aid. For Hoboken, that drop in state aid is disproportionately high, and I hope someone has the power to contest it in some way, but I'm not confident that anything can be done. In my opinion, if Kids First hadn't been doing their jobs well, we would have seen and increase in the levy. I think they are to be commended for the cuts that they did make, and I expect that they will continue to do so. If you had known that they would cut spending by almost $2.5 million, would you have been satisfied with that last fall? I know I would have.

3. I know this was talked about previously as well, but the main concessions to my understanding were that now working 20 hours does not qualify them as full time, as it was previously. Now it takes 29.5 hours for that distinction. While I still think that is crazy, it is certainly progress. The other main concession I am aware of is the overtime, in which payouts are lessened considerably. I also know that Marueen Sullivan supported this contract, so I'm not sure that there's a different stance on it than Kids First has.

4. The simple answer here is that they reduced spending overall. That very high number will take quite a few budget cycles to drop, I'm sure. As further spending cuts are made, we will see improvement. I'm sure the "Real Results" folk will tell you how dedicated they are to cutting spending as well, but I'm very concerned about their "slash and burn" budget approach. There is no "magic red pen" that makes the financial troubles disappear. The problems have taken years to build up, and will take several budget cycles to fix. Having realistic expectations is needed by those on the board, and those who support them.

Anyone who thinks using a "magic red pen" to slash and burn the budget is oversimplifying the issues and deluding themselves in thinking that is the best way to fix things. Sharp and drastic cuts will cause more problems than they solve, by either cutting essential services for the children or illegal layoffs that will cause us to spend more on lawyers and payouts than teachers.

Honestly, these things must be taken care of gradually and within the proper processes to do so. I am fully in favor of more cuts, and also want to see the tax levy lowered. But I also think the budget reduction for this year is significant progress, and expect to see more of the same in following years, assuming we keep the Kids First team on the BoE.

5. I agree with you here, though everyone should explain why they want to be on the BoE. Those with conflicts of interest should abstain from any measures that could impact their family members. Anyway, that's just my position. Regarding the Kids First candidates, I have no idea if any of them have family members who work in the schools or not. I know some have children in the schools. The only thing I could recommend here is to go to the meet and greets that are happening and ask them in person.

I hope these help to answer your questions. I hope you feel I have done so respectfully. Just because people don't always agree, doesn't mean they can't get along. Too often this is forgotten in comments sections everywhere.

Greg Lincoln

georgia said:

So, I am still undecided about the BoE: if I vote for RR, then Raia might win. I certainly don't want him back: he was a disaster. However, I am not willing to vote for KF, since they don't seem to be honest about what happened in the past year. I would have expected them to defend themselves and at least attempt to answer the questions above. Instead I see a lot of bullying (by some). If you don't agree with me, just explain your point of view. I think I am entitled to ask the above questions since I am paying the bill. Maybe, maybe you will persuade me. Talking bad about Maureen does not help either: I just see it as KF ganging up against her. I don't know Maureen, but this is what I perceive as an outsider. Dirty campaigns are not successful lately: Mason knows best.
Leon's post here on Revolt does not help KF's case either. I would not vote for someone who does not want to discuss his points of view openly. Sorry Leon! Would someone help and explain what's the best course? I know that the Revolt people are busy, but they should take a position. Soon.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sven on March 24, 2010 at 10:45am

Lincolnlogger said:

3. I know this was talked about previously as well, but the main concessions to my understanding were that now working 20 hours does not qualify them as full time, as it was previously. Now it takes 29.5 hours for that distinction. While I still think that is crazy, it is certainly progress. The other main concession I am aware of is the overtime, in which payouts are lessened considerably. I also know that Marueen Sullivan supported this contract, so I'm not sure that there's a different stance on it than Kids First has.

From what I am hearing (and correct me if I am wrong), the 29.5 hours apply only to new hires, while the current employees continue to enjoy their 20-hour "full-time" employment. Where in this world does one get full benefits for even 29.5 hours per week (except in Hoboken of course)?

Also, why does the school system have a need for any overtime? Isn't the square footage to be cleaned constant? Shouldn't someone just figure out how many people it takes to clean x square feet on a daily, weekly or whatever basis and do away with overtime once and forever?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lincolnlogger on March 24, 2010 at 1:48pm

Sven, I'm not sure if it applies only to new hires or not. I was under the impression that it was everyone, but I am not certain of that. I would hope that it does.

Completely in agreement with you that 29.5 hours does not constitute full time in the real world. But again, 29.5 is better than 20. However, our police officers don't work 40-hour weeks either.

From my understanding the Overtime applies to holidays and other coverage (such as if an employee is sick and someone else 'picks up the hours'). Again, my knowledge on this is limited, and I would welcome anyone with the facts in hand to correct me if I am wrong.

Thanks.

Greg

Sven said:

Lincolnlogger said:

3. I know this was talked about previously as well, but the main concessions to my understanding were that now working 20 hours does not qualify them as full time, as it was previously. Now it takes 29.5 hours for that distinction. While I still think that is crazy, it is certainly progress. The other main concession I am aware of is the overtime, in which payouts are lessened considerably. I also know that Marueen Sullivan supported this contract, so I'm not sure that there's a different stance on it than Kids First has.

From what I am hearing (and correct me if I am wrong), the 29.5 hours apply only to new hires, while the current employees continue to enjoy their 20-hour "full-time" employment. Where in this world does one get full benefits for even 29.5 hours per week (except in Hoboken of course)?

Also, why does the school system have a need for any overtime? Isn't the square footage to be cleaned constant? Shouldn't someone just figure out how many people it takes to clean x square feet on a daily, weekly or whatever basis and do away with overtime once and forever?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Overtaxed on March 24, 2010 at 4:22pm

Greg, regarding your statement "1. It seem to me that there was a little progress made on this, though not as much as you or I would have hoped. I'm not convinced it's the number one priority though, for reasons mentioned earlier. Basically, an extra 200 kids spread out throughout the Hoboken schools and classrooms don't add a whole lot of burden to the system, and the savings of finding them and removing them would be minimal."
I believe that if the BoE would eliminate 200 illegal students or more, the classes as well as the budget could be reduced significantly. That would be ~10 classes. What is the purpose of these crooks accepting illegal students if it wouldn't be to retain unnecessary staff? Raslowsky had a plan when he opened the door to the illegal students, don't you think?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by FAP on March 24, 2010 at 5:19pm

What makes you think it will reduce any classes or save any money?

You're dealing with the opposite of economies of scale. If a class has 25 kids and you remove 1 you still need the class and all the related infrastructure for the remaining 24 pupils. The only way you find economic saving is if there is a concentration of questionable pupils in a single class to the point you'd be able to consolidate the reduced class with another existing class.


Do you have any expectation that this is the case?


Overtaxed said:

Greg, regarding your statement "1. It seem to me that there was a little progress made on this, though not as much as you or I would have hoped. I'm not convinced it's the number one priority though, for reasons mentioned earlier. Basically, an extra 200 kids spread out throughout the Hoboken schools and classrooms don't add a whole lot of burden to the system, and the savings of finding them and removing them would be minimal."
I believe that if the BoE would eliminate 200 illegal students or more, the classes as well as the budget could be reduced significantly. That would be ~10 classes. What is the purpose of these crooks accepting illegal students if it wouldn't be to retain unnecessary staff? Raslowsky had a plan when he opened the door to the illegal students, don't you think?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lincolnlogger on March 24, 2010 at 5:31pm

Overtaxed:

Let me give a hypothetical example of the out-of-town students, and how it might impact classroom enrollment. Now, admittedly I am using some guesstimates and hypothetical numbers, but I hope they help to get my point across. I will try to be very conservative for fairness.

Suppose our schools have 200 total out-of-town students that we'd like to find and by doing so we hope to create a savings.

Now, hypothetically, let's assume that half of these are at Wallace School. That's a very gross over-estimation, but let's use it anyway. Part of the reason for picking on Wallace is that I'm a little more familiar with the school. Also an underlying assumption is that most of the out-of-town kids are in the younger grades (8th and below), probably even more disproportionate at the 4th grade and below, which Wallace represents. Also, Wallace is the biggest school and has the largest concentration of kids.

So, we hypothetically assume that there are 100 out-of-town kids at Wallace.

Wallace, at my best estimation, has right about 40 classrooms of children, from Kindergarten through 8th grade (at least according to the BoE website). These classes mirror the child demographic of the city, and are "bottom heavy", i.e. more kindergarten classes (6), first grade (7), second grade (6), and third grade (5) than the older grades (3-4 classes per grade).

Since the classrooms mirror the demographic, we will make an assumption that these out-of-town students also mirror the demographic, which in turn means the students will be distributed reasonably even throughout the classrooms. Since we have 40 classrooms, and 100 out-of-town students in the school, this averages out to about 2.5 students per classroom.

In our most populated grades, this means we have about 15 extra students in K and 2nd, 17.5 in first, and about 12.5 extra 3rd graders. Reasonably we can expect to collapse a couple of classrooms this way. Let's go ahead and say we cut four classrooms, at a savings of about $50K per teacher. Is that fair?

In the larger grades, the reduction in students doesn't allow for a collapse of the classrooms, with about 7-10 students per grade sent off to another school district. No money saved here.

I'd love to say we could double these savings by finding the other 100 out-of-town kids scattered throughout Hoboken schools. But the numbers are not going to play out, as the smaller schools (Connors, Brandt, Collabro) won't have the concentration of classes (and out-of-town students) in order to realize a savings.

I guess the ultimate point I'm trying to convey is that the out-of-town kids are most likely spread out, and therefore finding them is not going to create the savings of 10 classes. We'd be lucky to realize half of that, in all honesty.

Does that mean it's not worth doing? No, it is certainly something to be pursued. Five classes at about $50K savings is still worth it. Not to mention the hopefully added pedagogical benefit of some smaller sized classrooms. But should it be the #1 priority of the Board.

I am confident that the issue will be addressed by the board, and that some changes will be made. Concerned citizens and parents alike should stay involved and help make it happen.

I hope this was helpful.

Greg

Overtaxed said:

Greg, regarding your statement "1. It seem to me that there was a little progress made on this, though not as much as you or I would have hoped. I'm not convinced it's the number one priority though, for reasons mentioned earlier. Basically, an extra 200 kids spread out throughout the Hoboken schools and classrooms don't add a whole lot of burden to the system, and the savings of finding them and removing them would be minimal."
I believe that if the BoE would eliminate 200 illegal students or more, the classes as well as the budget could be reduced significantly. That would be ~10 classes. What is the purpose of these crooks accepting illegal students if it wouldn't be to retain unnecessary staff? Raslowsky had a plan when he opened the door to the illegal students, don't you think?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Overtaxed on March 27, 2010 at 10:00am

FAP, while I understand your point of view, should I believe that the BoE keeps a tab on the illegals, and as long as they are spread in small numbers, it makes economic sense? If that would be the case, I still wouldn't trust that the BoE (which had so many corrupt people on board for so long) would run this business efficiently.
I am demanding zero tolerance for any unethical and illegal behavior. Breaking the law equates to stealing from the taxpayer.

FAP said:

What makes you think it will reduce any classes or save any money?
You're dealing with the opposite of economies of scale. If a class has 25 kids and you remove 1 you still need the class and all the related infrastructure for the remaining 24 pupils. The only way you find economic saving is if there is a concentration of questionable pupils in a single class to the point you'd be able to consolidate the reduced class with another existing class.
Do you have any expectation that this is the case?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Overtaxed on March 27, 2010 at 10:17am

Greg,
By all means, I don't think that the teachers should be the target. Their salaries don't have a great impact on the budget. It's the top heavy administration that is expensive. I am pretty confident that if an honest BoE wants to consolidate and save, there are ways to do it. All the current excuses that I've heard (such as ohh...all these people have contracts that we cannot break...ohh...we have to protect the kids...) are just poor excuses. The kids receive the most expensive education in the state, and the metrics show poor results. That begs the question: what is the money (our money) wasted on?

Lincolnlogger said:

Overtaxed:

Let me give a hypothetical example of the out-of-town students, and how it might impact classroom enrollment.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kathy L. Mallow on March 27, 2010 at 11:18am

O.T.:

It is my understanding that the BoE has no jurisdiction over the out-of-district students ("illegals" is a telling term...). It's an administrative issue. In a perfect world, I would wish that those out-of-district students' true districts could be billed for the education that our district has supplied. But I suspect there's no way to make that happen.

Per your allegation of waffling on contract issues, how would you suggest the BoE break negotiated contracts? How would you suggest absorbing the possible litigation costs that would surely ensue (think CFO George)? What would you suggest to achieve a favorable cost-benefit analysis if that course of action is taken?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Overtaxed on March 27, 2010 at 8:24pm

I will not suggest anything at all. I am holding KidsFirst accountable for their undelivered promises. They wanted the power, and we gave them the power. Suggestions were made by the public after KidsFirst were elected. I have a suspicion that KidsFirst ignored those suggestions. Who are these people that we elected under false pretense? Wasn't Mr. Carter hired by the BoE? Isn't Mr. Carter obligated to the BoE? The same Mr. Carter who was supposed to screen the illegal students rigorously.
I wonder who Carter is, and if he is any different than the previous superintendent. My tax bill is the same. How about yours?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kathy L. Mallow on March 28, 2010 at 8:02am

Dear O.T.:

With respect, your response stymies reasonable dialogue. It reads as "I will place blame, but I refuse to suggest solutions for what I'm unhappy with." How helpful is that toward achieving shared goals & objectives? You have identified goals, but don't seem to grasp---and/or refuse to address the realistic process involved to achieve same. What are the public suggestions made previously you deem "ignored"? What do you perceive as a realistic timeline for change within the public sector? Surely, we're all feeling the financial pain....

Overtaxed said:

I will not suggest anything at all. I am holding KidsFirst accountable for their undelivered promises. They wanted the power, and we gave them the power. Suggestions were made by the public after KidsFirst were elected. I have a suspicion that KidsFirst ignored those suggestions. Who are these people that we elected under false pretense? Wasn't Mr. Carter hired by the BoE? Isn't Mr. Carter obligated to the BoE? The same Mr. Carter who was supposed to screen the illegal students rigorously.
I wonder who Carter is, and if he is any different than the previous superintendent. My tax bill is the same. How about yours?

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 8
• 9
• 10
• 11
• 12
• …
• 16
• Next ›
• Page